INNOVATIVE FUNDING FOR
SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL
AT U.S. AIRPORTS 
EXPLORED AT SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL
PREPARED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE-CARBON WAR ROOM AND SKYNRG

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  2 
AUTHORS & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
AUTHORS           ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
Annie Benn, Charlotte Hardenbol (SkyNRG),          The authors thank the following individuals and 
Adam Klauber, Craig Schiller,                    organizations for offering their insights, perspectives, 
Isaac Toussie, Misha Valk (SkyNRG)               and support on this work. 
Authors listed alphabetically. All authors are from       Stephanie Meyn, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 
Rocky Mountain Institute unless otherwise noted.       Borgan Anderson, The Port of Seattle 
Elizabeth Morrison, The Port of Seattle 
Isabel Safora, The Port of Seattle 
The Port of Seattle 
CONTACTS          Eldred Foundation 
Adam Klauber, aklauber@rmi.org 
Charlotte Hardenbol, charlotte@skynrg.com
SUGGESTED CITATION 
Klauber, Adam, Annie Benn, Charlotte Hardenbol, 
Craig Schiller, Isaac Toussie, Misha Valk. Innovative
Funding for Sustainable Aviation Fuel at U.S. 
Airports: Explored at Seattle-Tacoma International 
Rocky Mountain Institute, SkyNRG, July 2017. 
https://www.rmi.org/insights/reports/innovativefunding-sea-tac-2017
/ 

ABOUT ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE 
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)an independent nonprofit founded in 1982transforms global energy use to
create a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future. It engages businesses, communities, institutions, and
entrepreneurs to accelerate the adoption of market-based solutions that cost-effectively shift from fossil fuels to
efficiency and renewables. In 2014, Carbon War Room (CWR) merged with and now operates as part of RMI. RMI
has offices in Basalt and Boulder, Colorado; New York City; Washington, D.C.; and Beijing. 
ABOUT SKYNRG 
SkyNRG is the global market leader for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), having supplied over 25 airlines worldwide.
SkyNRG sources, blends, and distributes SAF, guarantees sustainability throughout the supply chain, and helps to 
co-fund the premium. At the same time, SkyNRG focuses on developing regional supply chains that offer a real 
sustainable and affordable alternative to fossil fuels. SkyNRG has its operations RSB certified and is structurally 
advised by an independent Sustainability Board in which the WWF International, Solidaridad, and the Energy 
Academy Europe hold a seat. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  3 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Global aviation generates approximately 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and is forecast to grow
to 5 percent by 2050.1 While most industries have a range of cost-effective options available to reduce carbon
emissions, aviation does not. For the foreseeable future, there is no alternative to liquid fuels for jet aircraft. 
The single largest opportunity to decarbonize air travel is to replace conventional, fossil-based jet fuel with
sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). However, SAF commercialization has barely begun and the industry is grappling
with a variety of economic and market challenges. 
High SAF prices are the chief reason for the slow uptake and the related absence of large-scale production
capacity. Despite government incentives, the price premium for SAF is still significant. i Airlines operate on low
profit margins; with fuel as the largest expense, there is limited ability to absorb these additional costs. 
The Port of Seattle (the Port), as the operator of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), can leverage its
unique position at the intersection of airlines, fuel suppliers, governments, and communities to support the
scale-up of SAF. Airports can aggregate fuel demand across airlines and play an integral role in their regional
economy. Bold leadership from airports will accelerate industry sustainability and SAF adoption. 
Catalyzing large-scale uptake of SAF can contribute to the Port's Century Agenda Goals to reduce carbon
emissions and will contribute to the development of clean energy jobs in the state of Washington. Blending SAF
into the Sea-Tac jet fuel supply, at a 1 percent level, would reduce CO by approximately 23,30031,000 metric
2 
tons annually on a life-cycle basis. 
Advancing SAF usage and creating a regional supply chain are ambitious goals requiring an innovative
approach. To support the Port's industry-leading goals, this project looks at a single critical element: funding 
mechanisms. 
The combined team of Carbon War Room and SkyNRG completed an assessment of potential mechanisms that
could: 
1.  Secure SAF co-benefits by procuring the beneficial attributes of SAF beyond energy 
2.  Facilitate SAF infrastructure development 
This report equips the Port's leadership to act as one of the first airports in the world to advance climate
solutions for aircraft via a reliable supply of low-carbon fuel for its passengers and airlines. We assessed and
ranked 14 co-benefit funding mechanisms based on their revenue potential and feasibility (i.e., legal
considerations, ease of implementation, airline factors, and other stakeholder impacts). 
The key findings of the study are: 
1.  While a U.S. airport cannot pay for aircraft fuel, it could pay directly for SAF co-benefits. Public dollars
cannot cover a commodity used by a for-profit private firm. However, SAF produces direct air quality
benefits, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports regional economic developmentall of
which are valued by airports. These characteristics are referred to as SAF "co-benefits" for this report. 
2.  There are numerous viable funding mechanisms with significant revenue potential. Two of the four
recommended mechanisms require FAA approval as they are currently not considered an acceptable 
use of airport revenue. The most promising mechanisms that can be implemented at Sea-Tac are: 

i Currently, the price of SAF is approximately three times the price of conventional jet fuel. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  4 

Corporate Supportcorporations contribute to offset their flight emissions ($1 million to $2.5
million per year) 
Port Taxing Authoritythese funds support air quality benefits, similar to the Port's Clean Truck
Program (Funding amount is variable and dependent on Port Commission priorities)ii 
Use of General Non-Aeronautical Revenue (requires FAA approval)while there are several
individual non-aeronautical fees and revenue sources that could be directed toward SAF co-benefits
(such as parking or landside fees), offering non-source specific revenues only when the airport
achieves a particular total revenue threshold could create a low-risk, non-targeted source for SAF
co-benefit funds ($1.0 million to $4.0 million per year) 
Airline Agreement (requires FAA approval)implement a fund via the airline operating agreement 
that is not subject to revenue sharing, or create a new fee ($380,000 to $2.3 million per year) 
3.  Infrastructure investment could jump-start regional SAF production. The most promising approach to
support infrastructure is indirect via the procurement of SAF co-benefits. The certainty of a medium-tolong-term
commitment made by the Port reduces investment risks for private sector funders. A longerterm
contract from Sea-Tac to procure SAF co-benefits is favorable over one from airlines which are
subject to greater market risks and exposure. Most other mechanisms identified for financing
infrastructure projects are outside the Port's legal scope. Focusing on funding SAF's co-benefits is a
better fit with the Port's activities and mission. 

INSIGHTS AND NEXT STEPS 
Developing an SAF supply chain in Washington is pioneering work. The Port has taken an important first step
toward the deployment of SAF at Sea-Tac by identifying funding mechanisms for co-benefit procurement.
Reducing the economic hurdle for SAF uptake is a key barrier to overcome. Therefore, the Port should continue
to explore and develop the most viable co-benefit funding mechanisms. 
The assurance of funds for SAF uptake can also indirectly incentivize infrastructure investment, as a medium- to 
long-term commitment sends a demand signal to private sector investors. However, to fully enable regional SAF
production, The Port must take additional steps. 
We recommend that the Port establishes a dedicated team to build the business case for a local supply chain as
a critical next step. This likely involves identifying affordable and abundant feedstock sources, mapping
production synergies, working with FAA and state authorities, and exploring partnership opportunities with other
SAF demand centers. Creating an investable business case will require creative solutions and engagement with
multiple stakeholders. The Port of Seattle is well positioned to facilitate this exercise given its active position at
the intersection of airlines, fuel suppliers, governments, and the broader community. 
The Port can also facilitate regional SAF production through the active promotion of policy and regulatory
support at the state and regional levels, and by advancing the airport leadership model with international and
national policy makers. 




ii For more information on the Port's Clean Truck Program: http://www.portseattle.org/Environmental/Air/Seaport-
Air-Quality/Pages/Clean-Trucks.aspx 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N       N
T
C
C
O    A
I
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A   O
TIT U     R R O

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  5 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
AUTHORS & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................... 2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 3 
INSIGHTS AND NEXT STEPS ....................................................................................................................... 4 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 6 
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SEA-TAC TO SUPPORT SAF .................................................................................. 8 
EXAMPLES OF EUROPEAN AIRPORT INVOLVEMENT IN SAF FUNDING .............................................................. 9 
DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 10 
PURCHASING SAF CO-BENEFITS ...................................................................................................... 12 
SAF CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISMS ...................................................................................... 13 
LONG LIST OF FUNDING MECHANISMS ..................................................................................................... 13 
SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 16 
LONG LIST EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................... 17 
SHORT LIST OF THE MOST FEASIBLE CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR THE PORT OF SEATTLE ........... 18 
CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISM RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................ 20 
SAF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE ..................................................................................................... 21 
LONG LIST OF SOURCES OF CAPITAL FOR SAF INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................... 21 
ON-AIRPORT SAF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AT SEA-TAC ....................................................... 24 
PROJECT FINANCE ................................................................................................................................ 24 
FINANCE POLICY OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................................... 25 
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ..................................................................................................... 26 
INSIGHTS AND NEXT STEPS ..................................................................................................................... 26 
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................................... 27 
DETAILED SAF CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISM EVALUATION MATRIX .................................................... 27 
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................................................... 30 
CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISM REVENUE MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS ... 30 
ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................................ 34 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C
O    A
I
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
A
S
T       O
TIT U     R R O

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  6 
INTRODUCTION 
The commercial global aviation industry accounts for approximately 2 percent of global greenhouse gas
emissions. In 2015, the industry produced 781 million metric tons (Mt) of CO with emissions growing by
2
approximately 3 percent per year.2 Aviation's share of total global emissions is forecast to grow to 5 percent by
2050. Demand for air transport is expected to increase by 4.3 percent, on average, each year for the next 20
years.3 To maintain its growth and simultaneously address environmental impacts, the aviation industry has
committed to several carbon emission goals, including reducing net aviation emissions to 50 percent below 2005
levels by 2050 (see Figure 1). 
Figure 1 illustrates the options available to the industry to meet sustainability targets. While technological,
operational, and economic measures will all play a role in reducing emissions, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is
critical to the success of aviation in meeting stated environmental goals. Other industries have access to a range
of existing cost-effective methods and products to reduce carbon emissions as well as numerous pathways for
efficiency.4 Aviation is relatively efficient given the continual focus to improve aircraft performance and
streamline operations to keep fuel consumption low. Unfortunately, due to the already achieved high efficiency
of aviation, there are limited emission reduction options. Also, for the foreseeable future, there is no alternative to
liquid fuels for aviation. The single largest opportunity to decarbonize the aviation industry is to replace
conventional fossil-based jet fuel with SAF. 











FIGURE 1. BREAKDOWN OF CO REDUCTION OPERATIONS FOR AVIATION THROUGH 20505 
2
SAF is certified safe for use in commercial aircraft, without requiring any alterations to equipment or
infrastructure, and can be produced sustainably without damaging ecosystems in a manner that benefits
communities via low-carbon, sustainably grown feedstocks and sustainable production design. 
In the last five years, the sustainable aviation fuel industry has made rapid advancements on several fronts: 
M OU       B
Y
K   N
T
R
A O
C  N
C
O    A
I
R     N
I    E
T   W
N           M
A
S
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  7 

Industry has commercialized SAF conversion technologies, and the first dedicated SAF refinery in the
U.S. is now a reality. 
U.S. and EU governments now offer policies to incentivize SAF use. 
Producers have achieved downstream supply chain efficiency improvements. 
Airlines, fuel producers, and other stakeholders seek a shift from isolated demonstration flights to
continuous daily operations. 
ASTM has certified a total of five fuel production pathways to produce SAF for commercial aviation. 
Nonetheless, the SAF industry has not grown at the rate targeted by the FAA and international aviation groups,
and the penetration of SAF in the global jet fuel market is still essentially zero. Without scale and growing
volume, the nascent industry grapples with a variety of economic and market challenges. The main reason for
the low uptake and the related absence of large-scale production capacity is the price gap between SAF and
conventional jet fuel. 
Fuel costs comprise over one-third of an average airline's operating cost. Even with recent crude oil price
declines in 2015, it remains a large percentage of a carrier's expenditures. Given the competitive dynamic within 
the industry and pressure to compete on ticket pricing, fuel costs remain an important priority. The current price
premium of SAF impacts airline profits if they choose to be an early adopter of the technology. Airlines are
limited in their ability to purchase fuel at prices above the prevailing market price for fossil jet fuel. A carrier on
the SAF vanguard will hurt its competitive position relative to other airlines that do not shoulder the same SAF
cost burden on a specific city-pair route or airport location. While several airlines have made commitments to
purchase SAF, the higher costs limit large-scale adoption. 
While the price premium of SAF remains an impediment, the cost of SAF has fallen significantly from its first
introduction in 2008. Initially, SAF was 10 to 15 times more expensive than conventional jet fuel. However due to
scaling growth, the development of dedicated production capacity, and increasingly efficient supply chains, that
price difference has fallen dramatically to roughly three times the price of conventional fuel. The actual cost of
SAF and its cost difference relative to fossil-based jet fuel differ significantly across regions, driven by feedstock
price, conversion technology/capital investment for a production facility, the policy environment, supply chain
logistics, and other factors. 









FIGURE 2. SIMPLIFIED BREAKDOWN AND REDUCTION POTENTIAL OF SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL PRICE 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N    C  N
C   T
A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  8 

The price premium of SAF is expected to continue to decrease, driven by scaling effects and increased
conversion efficiencies, eventually nearing price parity with conventional jet fuel as illustrated in Figure 2.
Increased demand will help drive lower-priced SAF supply as production increases in scale and favorable
financing becomes available. Additionally, while there are several technologies for producing SAF that are
currently certified for use in commercial aviation, many more technology pathways are in the certification
pipeline. Upcoming new certified technologies will unlock lower value feedstocks, increase supply, and reduce
production costs. 

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SEA-TAC TO SUPPORT SAF 
The Port of Seattle (the Port), as the operator of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), has a unique
opportunity to leverage its position at the intersection of airlines, fuel suppliers, governments, and communities
to support the scale-up of SAF. An airport can aggregate fuel demand across airlines and plays an integral role
in its regional economy. Airports taking leadership roles to pioneer SAF adoption is a bold new paradigm in
aviation sustainability that offers several advantages for the SAF industry over the conventional airline approach: 
EqualityIt avoids the competitive distortion resulting from one airline bearing more of the burden of
purchasing the SAF. Also, fueling all airlines at the same blend ratio enables the participation of smaller
airlines and business aviation operators without the resources to implement SAF offtake agreements. 
Economies of scaleAggregating demand across all airlines at the airport increases total volume while
reducing transaction costs, logistical costs, complexity, and administrative burden. As SAF would be
utilized in the existing infrastructure (tank farm, hydrant, fueling trucks, etc.) by all airlines, there are no
additional capital investments for SAF introduction. 
National/regional economic developmentA proven and long-term airport demand center can
encourage investment along the supply chain, including alternative fuel refinery capacity, and can
stimulate increased downstream activity in the region. The Central Puget Sound area is already a key
driver of economic activity and jobs and could extend its influence even further with this project. 
Catalyzing large-scale uptake of SAF can contribute to the Port's Century Agenda Goals to reduce carbon
emissions and could also contribute to the development of clean energy jobs in the state of Washington.
Blending SAF into 1 percent of all Sea-Tac jet fuel would result in approximately 23,30031,000 metric tons of
CO reduction each year on a life-cycle basis (see Table 1). This represents a substantial carbon reduction that is
2 
equal to or larger than other aircraft-related emission strategies that an airport could influence. Electrification of
ground support equipment would generate 10,000 tonnes per year if implemented by all airlines. Reducing
aircraft auxiliary power unit (APU) usage has been recognized as another opportunity for the Port, which includes
providing pre-conditioned air at the gate (40,000 tonnes per year if implemented by all airlines). 
Conventional Conventional  Minimum   Maximum
SAF volume   Carbon
Total jet fuel
for 1% airport-  coefficient    fuel CO     fuel CO       CO        CO
2                2 
2            2
consumption
wide blend    (pounds    emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
(gallons)                      6, 7
(gallons)   CO /gallon)                          reduction    reduction
2         (pounds CO )    (MtCO )
2          2
(60% + 1%)  (80% + 1%)
EIA                          21.10     84,400,000    38,283      23,353      31,009
400,000,000   4,000,000
ICAO                     19.44    77,765,355    35,274     21,517     28,572
Notes:
1. Based on existing literature, 6080% is the range of CO2 emission reduction, on a life-cycle basis, for SAF relative to conventional jet fuel.
2. The additional 1 percent CO2 emission reduction is due to the reduced fuel consumption resulting from SAF having greater energy density
than conventional jet fuel.
TABLE 1. RANGE OF CO REDUCTION FROM AN AIRPORT-WIDE 1% BLEND OF SAF AT SEA-TAC 6, 7 
2
M OU       B
Y
R
A O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  9 

Advancing SAF usage and creating a regional supply chain are ambitious goals that require an innovative
approach. To support the Port's industry-leading goals, this report looks at one specific element: funding 
mechanisms. 
The combined team of Carbon War Room and SkyNRG completed an assessment of potential mechanisms that
could: 
1.  Help cover the cost of SAF co-benefits 
2.  Facilitate SAF infrastructure development 
This report presents actions to equip the Port's leadership as one of the first airports in the world to advance
climate solutions for aircraft via a reliable supply of low-carbon fuel for its passengers and airlines. 

EXAMPLES OF EUROPEAN AIRPORT INVOLVEMENT IN SAF FUNDING 
Airports taking a leadership role to pioneer SAF adoption is a new development in aviation sustainability.
Recently, several European airports have begun to actively support SAF uptake by identifying and leveraging
funding mechanisms for SAF. The three different models that have been applied to aggregate funds in a
European context include the following: 
1.  Corporate contribution: The Fly Green Fund is a Nordic initiative founded by SkyNRG, NISA, and
Karlstad Airport in 2014. It is a fund that gives companies, organizations, and individuals the opportunity
to decrease their environmental impact by flying on SAF. While 75 percent of the funds aggregated in
the Fly Green Fund go into the procurement of SAF volume, the remaining 25 percent is invested in the
development of SAF supply chains in the Nordic region. Swedavia, the largest Swedish airport operator,
joined the Fly Green Fund as a launching customer, buying SAF for all staff flights. On an annual basis,
Swedavia consumes approximately 150,000 U.S. gallons, resulting in a 1 million euro (10 million SEK)
contribution per year over the course of three years. In 2016, Swedavia was the first company in the
world to have its flights 100 percent powered by SAF. 
2.  Airport incentive: Norwegian airport operator Avinor has played a key role in a commercial offtake
agreement by offering a unique airport incentive for all flights at Oslo Airport that are powered by SAF. 
Avinor has allocated up to 100 million NOK, approximately 10 million euros, over a 10-year period (2013
2022) for initiatives and projects that can contribute to the realization of Norwegian biofuel. In 2016,
Avinor supported the supplying parties, AirBP and SkyNRG, in two ways; 1) Avinor allocated a fixed
amount per year to cover additional logistics costs, and 2) Avinor contributed money to cover the SAF
premium for each liquid ton of SAF blended into the Avinor airport fueling system. 
3.  Routine provision: Together with a yet-to-be-revealed central European airport, SkyNRG and Carbon
War Room are currently advancing a program to integrate SAF into standard operations. The airport
authority has aggregated funds to make a 1 percent SAF blend available to all aircrafts refueling at the
airport for the first five years, at no additional cost to the airlines. A federal fund responsible for the
development and supervision of civil aviation activities in the country will cover 80 percent of the costs
to enable the routine provision of SAF. The airport authority will directly finance the remaining 20 
percent. 
Although these European models can serve as inspirational examples, U.S. regulatory constraints and
restrictions specific to U.S. airports like Sea-Tac need to be assessed. The goal of this report is to
explore options that meet the spirit of these European funding models, but are applicable to the U.S.
airport context. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  10 
DEFINITIONS 
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) refers to jet fuel that is produced from renewable feedstocks instead of
being refined from petroleum. There are a variety of possible feedstocks for SAF, including used cooking
oil, tallow, energy crops, agricultural and forestry residues, and municipal solid waste. In this document,
we define "neat" or "unblended" SAF as the product that comes directly from the SAF production
facility. Neat SAF is not certified for use in commercial aircraft. Once the neat SAF is blended with
conventional fuel (Jet-A), the resulting fuel is referred to as "blended fuel" or simply "SAF." 
SAF is a "drop-in" fuel, which means that it has the same characteristics and meets the same
specifications as regular jet fuel. Therefore, SAF can be used in existing engines, fuel systems, and
infrastructure. The maximum blend percentage is prescribed by ASTM and results from a rigorous
testing and certification process. In general, it ranges from 10 percent to 50 percent, depending on the
production process. Once blended, the fuel is fully certified as jet fuel, has the same characteristics, and
meets the same specifications. 
SAF co-benefits are the positive externalities created by the production and consumption of SAF. 
Beyond the primary energy functions, SAF also produces direct air quality benefits, reduces greenhouse
gas emissions, and benefits regional economic developmentall of which are of value to airports. There
may also be additional positive impacts that include reduced fuel price volatility and increased energy
independence. These characteristics are designated as the "co-benefits" of SAF for this report. This can
be thought of as an umbrella term for the numerous positive externalities associated with the production
and consumption of SAF. 
Airport revenue is considered all revenue that an airport receives from both aeronautical and non-
aeronautical revenue sources, as described in FAA Order 5190.6B, section 15.6. These revenues are 
subject to the revenue diversion rules described in section 15.13 of the Order. In the case of the Port of
Seattle, all airport revenue (combined aeronautical and non-aeronautical) is subject to sharing with
airlines (i.e., per the Port's contracts with Signatory Airlines, all net revenue exceeding 125 percent of its
annual debt service will be shared with airlines at a rate of 50 percent). 
Aeronautical revenue is a subset of airport revenue. It is the revenue typically imposed on
airlines, and is associated with airline rents, usage fees, and charges. Airports, including Sea-
Tac, create a contract with airlines wishing to use its facilities, typically known as a Use and
Lease agreement. This contract frames the relationship between the airport and the airline. One
of the most important elements of any Use and Lease Agreement is the definition of the
compensation the airline pays to the airport for use and maintenance of its facilities, including: 
Terminal rentsRents based on the amount of space an airline uses inside the terminal. 
Landing feesA per plane charge, usually based on the weight of the aircraft. 
Other chargesSpecific fees for extra airport services (e.g., use of a jet bridge). 
An airline does not have to have a signed contract to use an airport. However, an airline with a
contract, typically called a signatory airline, enjoys special benefits such as lower rates. 
Non-aeronautical revenue is also a subset of airport revenue. It is the revenue associated with
parking fees, landside operation fees, real estate, advertising, car rentals, etc. These revenue
streams have become a vital component of an airport's total revenue. They tend to generate
higher net profit margins than aeronautical revenues, providing diversification in an airport's
income portfolio while serving as an additional cushion during economic downturns. 
Non-airport revenue is any revenue the Port receives or that a third party could generate that is not
associated with Sea-Tac's direct finances. This includes the Port's tax levy, non-airport property rent
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  11 

revenue, voluntary contributions from individuals or corporations, etc. This revenue is more flexible
because it is not subject to FAA Order 5190.6B, but it is subject to state laws governing how Ports can
spend revenue (e.g. Title 53 of the Revised Code of Washington). 
Port revenue is a subset of non-airport revenue received by the Port from non-airport-related
sources such as tax levies, non-airport land leases, tenants, and operations. 
Non-port revenue is also a subset of non-airport revenue that is generated by any public or
private source that is not generated or controlled by the Port of Seattle. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I    E   W
N           M
A
S
T       O
TIT U     R R O

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  12 
PURCHASING SAF CO-BENEFITS 
Airports cannot directly pay for aircraft fuel. Among other restrictions, public dollars cannot fund a commodity
used by a for-profit private firm. However, airports can purchase services that support airport performance goals
such as cleanliness (custodial contracts) or clean energy (renewable energy certificates). Sustainable aviation
fuel provides the traditional energy qualities of fossil-based Jet-A as well as additional environmental benefits
and desired services, or co-benefits. Besides offering lower life-cycle carbon emissions, SAF usage lowers direct
emissions of air pollutants (such as sulfur and particulate matter) and supports regional economic development
through locally sited supply-chain elements. Growing the SAF market could insulate airlines and, by extension,
their stakeholders from the price volatility associated with conventional jet fuel. Fuel supply security can also
benefit from increasing SAF consumption. 
An airport could theoretically purchase these co-benefits in the same way that vendors provide services without
a transfer of physical ownership. For example, airports contract with carpet manufacturers that offer floor
covering as a service and lighting corporations that offer lighting as a service, as well as receive renewable
energy credits for green building certification. Co-benefits can function as a new service. Additionally, airports
are already in the business of providing services that offer air quality benefits and cost savings to airlines in the
form of pre-conditioned air at the gate, or infrastructure to plug in electric ground support equipment. Given the
nascent stage of defining these benefits for each SAF product, it is too early to assign value to each of the types
of co-benefits and fully examine a fuel program based on these values. For the current time, the willingness to
pay a premium above fossil jet parity could equate with assumed co-benefits. This approach has been proposed
to the FAA, which has expressed openness to the concept. As additional research is completed, co-benefits can
be quantified and potentially monetized. 
The model of a central fund operated by a third party that purchases the SAF and tracks and quantifies the cobenefits
for the fund contributors is feasible in the U.S. The specific legal structure of such a fund and the way in
which a U.S. airport purchases SAF co-benefits must be made very clear and vetted through the appropriate
state and federal departments. 
One significant benefit of a centralized fund operated by a third party is that its governance structure could allow
for representatives to be elected or appointed to negotiate SAF fuel costs on behalf of the fund. This would
provide assurance to airlines, corporations, and airports that the costs are as competitive as possible. 
M OU       B
R
N
A
Y         O
K          N
C   T
C
O    A
I
R     N
I    E
T   W
N           M
A
S
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  13 
SAF CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISMS 
This section assesses innovative funding mechanisms that an airport could consider utilizing to purchase SAF 
co-benefits. Through this action, the Port would help create stable demand for SAF, which is an ambitious goal
and a powerful driver to establish a regional supply chain. 
To assess the best options for Sea-Tac, a long list covering a full range of potential mechanisms was scored on
seven selection criteria (see Figure 3). The list includes 14 potential funding mechanisms divided into two
categories: airport revenue and non-airport revenue. Airport revenue includes both aeronautical and nonaeronautical
sources. This report distinguishes whether airport revenue is aeronautical or non-aeronautical
because it is critical to the understanding of where and how airlines are monetarily affected. Non-airport revenue
includes Port revenue (maritime or corporate, not associated with the airport) and non-Port revenue (e.g., from
corporations or individual passengers). 
Using the selection criteria to analyze the mechanisms, the list was filtered down to a short list of the seven most
viable funding mechanisms for the Port. 










FIGURE 3. CRITERIA USED FOR SHORT-LISTING THE FUNDING MECHANISMS 

LONG LIST OF FUNDING MECHANISMS 
Not all the mechanisms described below are available to or feasible for the Port of Seattle; however, they reflect
the full range of possibilities for any U.S. airport. 

AIRPORT REVENUES 
An airport could use its authority to impose new fees or use existing fees to cover the cost of SAF co-benefits.
For each type of fee, the airport will need to determine whether it is most appropriate in the airport's context to:
a) divert existing fee revenue from its current use, b) increase an existing fee and use the new marginal revenue
M OU       B
R
Y         O
K   N
A
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E
T   W    M
A
S          O
TIT U     R R O

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  14 

for SAF, or c) create a new fee where one is not currently in place. A key consideration in creating a new
mechanism is whether it can be isolated from conditions such as revenue sharing in order to maximize revenue
for SAF. 
A.  AERONAUTICAL REVENUES 
1.  Airline agreement: When negotiating airline agreements, new requirements for SAF co-benefit fees/funds 
could be part of service contracts. This could potentially benefit airlines in helping them achieve their
CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) targets with the International
Civil Aviation Organization. While airline contracts are subject to FAA regulation, it may be possible to
transmit funds directly to a third party, thereby exempting the funds from revenue-sharing requirements. 
B.  NON-AERONAUTICAL REVENUES 
2.  Retail vouchers: Retail and food vendors could sell coupons that cover mileage or pre-determined SAF
volumes to passengers. The coupons could be redeemed for preferential pricing at concessionaires. A
coupon system may also be combined with a voluntary passenger contribution as part of a comprehensive
community engagement program. It may be possible to structure this program in such a fashion that airport
revenues are not affected, for example by using a third-party operator, in which case revenue diversion rules
might not apply. 
3.  Landside operation fees: The airport could create a specific fee for contracted vehicles entering the airport
(e.g., buses, taxis, limousines, transportation network companies, etc.). This fee could be related to the
environmental performance of the vehicle or transportation mode as part of an emissions reduction strategy. 
4.  User surcharge: The airport could create a charge to any number of potential customer groups including
passengers, concessions, and business aviation. One example of a plausible fee could be applied to energy
use with user costs that relate to level of consumption. Stakeholder buy-in for such an approach is critical to
its success. Another example is a parking fee, described below: 
a.  Parking fee: A new surcharge on targeted drivers (e.g., long-term business travelers) or a
percentage increase in all parking could generate significant revenue for SAF. This could be
linked to air quality goals by discounting the fee for EV drivers. Considerations of whether this
option is viable at a specific airport should include revenue-sharing agreements and secondary
effects of increased parking expense (e.g., mode-switching). 
5.  Mobile payment transactional efficiency: The use of mobile payment services for retail, dining, and other
concessions enables vendors to serve more customers, more quickly and efficiently, and to reduce attrition
on queues. This has the potential to increase revenues directly for airport concessionaires and indirectly for
the airport and airlines through revenue-sharing agreements. 
6.  Operational savings: Four variants of this mechanism relate to either capturing future operational savings or
using OpEx budgets funding to cover SAF. In the case of capturing savings, a tool such as a green revolving
fund could be used to "bank" these savings and reapply them to the SAF co-benefits. The green revolving
fund is not listed as a separate mechanism, but is rather a tool that can be used to convert savings from
mechanisms such as the ones listed in this section into funds for the SAF co-benefits. The four variants
include: 
a.  Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC): A third-party energy services company, in
conjunction with a third-party bank, can reduce energy, water, and waste consumption. Savings
above contracted minimum can be directed to a green revolving fund. 
b.  Streamlined Performance Contracting: An alternative to an ESPC, the airport could elect to
participate with an all-in-one provider and direct savings generated to SAF. Under this
mechanism, the third-party provider takes on the internal coordination and effort of identifying
potential operational cost-saving measures, pre-secures financing, and installs upgrades usually
within three months of initial discussion (vs. the typical 18-month duration associated with
ESPCs). 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  15 

c.  Other Operational Savings: Additional pending operational savings initiatives could create
savings that the airport would not otherwise capture (e.g., additional electrification of fleet,
efficiencies in airport operations). Instead, the airport could dedicate proven savings to SAF. This
measure could be a way to reach out across airport lines of business to identify cost-saving
actions and capture those savings for SAF co-benefit coverage. 
d.  OpEx Budget: The Port could reserve unspent allocated operational expense budget to cover
the SAF co-benefits on an episodic basis. The viability of this option would depend on the size
of the OpEx budget at the airport, as well as decisions on a wide range of priorities. 
7.  Enhanced use lease: An airport could rent airport land (or roof surface area) to solar developers and receive
payments from the energy generation. The viability of this option depends on the availability of land or roof
surface for this purpose, as well as the economics of energy pricing in the region. This option can
alternatively be applied to non-airport property, in which case revenue diversion rules do not apply. 
8.  Aircraft fuel tax payments: If federal and state fuel taxes are currently being dedicated to non-airport
expenditures, these funds could be redirected to fund airport infrastructure. This funding could be used
either to cover the cost of SAF co-benefits directly, or to make a capital investment that would generate
operational savings that could then be leveraged (e.g., through a green revolving fund). This mechanism is
viable only if it is possible to redirect these payments to the SAF program. 
9.  Toll road: Depending on the airport regulatory context, it could be possible to levy a toll on airport access
roads. This mechanism would have similar considerations and implementation to the "user surcharge"
mechanism described above. 

NON-AIRPORT REVENUES 
The mechanisms in this section cover how to leverage existing incentives external to the airport for improving air
quality and reducing CO emissions. In some cases, the incentive can be applied directly to the SAF co-benefits. 
2
There are other examples of environmental funds available to airports, such as Voluntary Airport Low Emission
(VALE) grants or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds, but these cannot be applied
directly to the SAF co-benefits under current grant rules. Instead, those funds could be leveraged to generate
operational cost savings, which can then be banked via a green revolving fund. 
A.  PORT REVENUE 
1.  Taxing authority: This option is available only to a small number of airports that have taxing authority, either
as part of a Port Authority with taxing authority, or through the municipal/regional government. This option
may prove challenging from a stakeholder perspective without strong community buy-in. 
B.  NON-PORT REVENUE 
2.  Corporate support: A sponsorship model such as the Fly Green Fund (see section "Examples of European
Airport Involvement in SAF Funding" above) could be established, enabling local firms to reduce their carbon
footprint from business travel by flying on SAF.iii This mechanism has the additional benefit of engaging the
local community and business partners in the project. Viability of the mechanism largely depends on the
potential of corporate partners in the region. 
3.  Voluntary traveler contribution: Passengers may choose to buy SAF co-benefits (most likely to be CO 
2
reductions) proportional to the impact of their journey. This could be enabled by, for example, a modified
version of the Good Traveler programan offset program enabling flyers to voluntarily offset the carbon
impact of their journey. The approach has the added benefit of direct engagement with passengers. 

iii For more information on the Fly Green Fund: http://skynrg.com/nordic/fly-green-fund/ 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  16 

4.  Commodity impact factor (CIF): The American Carbon Registry (ACR) is developing CIF as an alternative to
a carbon offset. When this is available, airport-purchased SAF could be financed in part through the sale of
the carbon reduction. Based on recent discussion (September 2016), ACR is first piloting this concept for
methane reduction and will implement aviation fuel at a later date (approximately Q4 2017). 
5.  Federal grants: As mentioned above, environmental funds available to airports such as VALE grants or
CMAQ funds cannot be applied directly to the SAF co-benefits under current grant rules; however, there are
ongoing discussions with the FAA to allow VALE grants to be used for SAF. Alternatively, those funds could
be leveraged to generate operational cost savings, which can then be banked via a green revolving fund as
described above. 

SELECTION CRITERIA 
All 14 mechanisms were evaluated for their feasibility for the Port using the seven selection criteria defined
below. 
Estimate of potential annual funding amount: The different funding options have different anticipated
monetary yields. Details regarding the estimation of funding levels for the various mechanisms in the
context of the Port are discussed in Appendix B. 
Legal and regulatory considerations: Many options seem logical or reasonable, but may be
incompatible with current local, state, or federal regulations. The legality must be considered. 
Ease of implementation: An option may be feasible, but require a high level of effort to implement. All
else equal, easier-to-implement measures will appear more attractive, but ease of implementation must
be considered in the context of the level of potential funding and the other criteria. Factors affecting
ease of implementation could include whether control of the mechanism is located internally or
externally, staff availability, duration/timeline of the implementation process, and complexity to execute. 
Airline coordination: As airlines are the key stakeholders in any fuel-related effort, airline interests and
level of effort must be included in the analysis. 
Neighboring communities: Like airlines, neighboring communities are a key stakeholder group that
should be treated separately. Some funding mechanisms might have social and/or economic impacts on
the community, or environmental co-benefits. These considerations should be included. 
Other stakeholders: The interests of other relevant stakeholders (e.g., passengers, the public, landside
stakeholders, government stakeholders, etc.) must be considered. This analysis includes the likely
"winners" and "losers" of different approaches, if applicable, as well as the effort required to align
stakeholder interests. Additionally, airports must address concerns of the public and any potential
opposition to a specific funding mechanism. 
Potential secondary effects: Secondary impacts of different funding mechanisms must be considered,
and could include, for example, inadvertently reducing revenue in another area of the budget, or
influencing behavior and buying choices at the airport. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N       N
T
C
C    A
I
N     O
R
I
N   E   W    M
A
S
T
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  17 

LONG LIST EVALUATION 
The results of the long list evaluation are summarized in Figure 4 below. See Appendix A for a detailed analysis. 















FIGURE 4. SUMMARY OF CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISM LONG LIST EVALUATION 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  18 















FIGURE 4 CONTINUED 

SHORT LIST OF THE MOST FEASIBLE CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR THE
PORT OF SEATTLE 
Not all the mechanisms investigated are available to or feasible for the Port of Seattle. Given that the range of
estimated revenue for the various co-benefit funding mechanisms spans from $1,250 to $22.5 million per year 
(see Appendix B for details on the estimation of funding amounts), it is likely that implementing a single
mechanism will be insufficient to meet the needs of funding the co-benefits for an airport-wide 1 percent blend
of SAF, estimated to cost approximately $6 million per year.iv Therefore, it is recommended that the Port
consider implementing a portfolio of funding mechanisms that collectively provide the necessary funds. 
To provide the greatest risk-adjusted returns to expending effort in overcoming potential feasibility concerns,
portfolio selection should prioritize mechanisms based on the following order (those listed first are highest
priority): 
1.  High revenue, high overall feasibility 
2.  Low revenue, high overall feasibility 
3.  High revenue, low overall feasibility 
4.  Low revenue, low feasibility 

iv 400 million gallons jet fuel consumed annually at Sea-Tac  1% blend = 4 million gallons of SAF  $1.5/gallon
premium in SAF price compared to jet fuel price  4 million gallons * $1.5/gallon premium = $6 million total annual
premium cost. 
M OU       B
R
Y         O
K   N
A
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E
T   W    M
A
S          O
TIT U     R R O

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  19 

The short list below represents the most feasible mechanisms that could be implemented at Sea-Tac based on
the long list evaluation. 

AIRPORT REVENUES 
1.  Airline agreement (aeronautical): 
Key Benefit: Airlines agree via a long-term contract to contribute directly to SAF funding and would
receive direct co-benefits and clear greenhouse gas accounting for their shares. 
Key Concern: Some airlines may want direct SAF contracts, while others would prefer a smaller,
lower risk contribution. Balancing these interests will be challenging among all Signatory Airlines. 
2.  Retail vouchers (non-aeronautical): 
Key Benefit: Motivates customers to receive monetary benefits by participating and avoids
solicitation. 
Key Concern: Relies on complex concessionaire partnerships and could reduce overall revenue from
airport dining and retail sources (currently shared between the Port and airlines). 
3.  Landside operation fees (non-aeronautical): 
Key Benefit: Could increase the environmental performance of landside operators and would likely
be a large source of revenue. 
Key Concern: The Port aims to create a level playing field among operators and their requirements,
and operators already feel they are paying high fees and implementing environmental technologies
and practices. 
4.  User surcharge (non-aeronautical): 
Key Benefit: Could increase environmental performance of airport businesses and would likely be a
large source of revenue. 
Key Concern: Similar to other fees, businesses may feel singled out if there are additional fees
associated with their operations at the airport. 
The key concern for many of the non-aeronautical revenue mechanisms is that they single out specific users or
revenue sources. One approach that could be explored to balance the fairness of using non-aeronautical
revenue sources to pay for SAF co-benefits would be to allocate a fixed amount or percent of total nonaeronautical
revenue above a certain revenue threshold. For example, rather than targeting a specific source
such as landside operation fees, the allocation of SAF co-benefit funds would result in a slight reduction in
overall revenue for the airport and revenue shared with airlines. This mechanism would be referred to as: 
5.  Use of General Non-Aeronautical Revenue: 
Key Benefit: Does not target specific users, vendors, or funding sources at the airport, and relies
only on the total non-aeronautical revenue received by the airport. 
Key Concern: Requires airline and FAA approval, and could be reduced in years where general nonaeronautical
revenue is not above the agreed-upon profit threshold. 

NON-AIRPORT REVENUES 
1.  Taxing authority (Port): 
Key Benefit: Compared to other taxpayer funded initiatives to improve air quality, this is a costeffective
way to achieve reductions. 
Key Concern: This option may prove challenging from a political perspective without strong
community buy-in. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  20 

2.  Corporate support (non-Port): 
Key Benefit: This mechanism has the additional benefit of engaging the local community and
business partners in the project. 
Key Concern: Viability of the mechanism largely depends on the potential of corporate partners in
the region. 
3.  Voluntary traveler contribution (non-Port): 
Key Benefit: This mechanism engages the local community and creates a sense of regional pride
and investment. 
Key Concern: The anticipated funding from voluntary sources is expected to be small. 

CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISM RECOMMENDATION 
While all eight mechanisms identified in the short list were determined to have significant revenue potential and
to be feasible for the Port to implement, it is recommended that the Port initially generate revenue from the
following mechanisms, while expanding to the remaining short-listed mechanisms over time. 
Corporate Support$1 million to $2.5 million per year 
Port Taxing Authority$360,000 to $720,000 per year (Funding amount is variable and dependent on
Port Commission priorities) 
Use of General Non-Aeronautical Revenue$1.0 to $4.0 million per year 
Airline Agreement$380,000 to $2.3 million per year 
With the exception of Corporate Support, all of these funding mechanisms require careful examination regarding 
state and federal regulations. In particular, both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue sources require FAA
approval, and tax levy funds must be deemed eligible to pay for SAF co-benefits. Focusing efforts on these
funding mechanisms will enable the Port to create a dedicated source of funds for the SAF co-benefits, while
using a minimal number of mechanisms and expending the least amount of effort to establish them and 
overcome potential challenges. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  21 
SAF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE 
This section describes various approaches an airport or private sector entity could take to participate in the
financing of SAF infrastructure, which includes facilities to store, blend, or produce SAF. The Port of Seattle has
limited legal authority to apply these mechanisms as a public sector entity, and therefore Port's particular
limitations are examined in section "On-Airport SAF Infrastructure Finance at Sea-Tac Airport" below.

LONG LIST OF SOURCES OF CAPITAL FOR SAF INFRASTRUCTURE 
1.  Long-term contract with third-party producer: Guaranteeing offtake is the simplest method to support
regional SAF production without the associated complexity and risk involved with financing production
infrastructure. While an airport cannot guarantee fuel offtake directly, depending on its legal structure, it 
could guarantee funds directed to a third-party contractor for co-benefits and indirectly provide the type of
guarantee needed. A long-term agreement for a defined volume of fuel, at a specified price, provides
demand assurance from a creditworthy counterparty. This arrangement could facilitate the SAF producer to
confidently solicit external investor production financing. (See also non-capital contributions, below.) One
option to consider for the party that could guarantee the offtake is a special purpose vehicle set up by the
airline fuel consortium. 
A long-term contract to procure SAF co-benefits from a supplier is identified as the most promising of all
infrastructure financing actions for an airport. 
2.  Favorable leasing: An airport or city could lease non-airport property and build and own infrastructure on it,
provided it meets FAA requirements to benefit airport operations. 
3.  Public benefit fund: This revenue source is a common component of utility billing in most states in the U.S. 
to cover the costs of energy efficiency and emissions reduction programs. Washington State is among the
minority of states that do not have this fee. It may be possible to establish a new program for SAF
production capacity to generate a credit for indirect elimination of fossil energy sources. 
4.  Federal bioenergy incentives: Incentives from federal agencies, including DOE, FAA, USDA, DoD, and
other involved parties, may be available to stimulate supply chains. The project developer would need to
apply for these programs; however, cooperation and support from an airport can make applications more
appealing (especially long-term offtake contracts; see above). Note that these programs include caps on the
funding available, which should be taken into consideration when selecting appropriate programs. Examples
of such programs include: 
a.  USDA Section 9003 program: This program provides loan guarantees for up to $250 million for
the "development, construction, and retrofitting of new and emerging technologies for the
development of Advanced Biofuels." 
b.  USDA Section 9005 program: The Advanced Biofuel Payment Program "supports and ensures
an expanding production of advanced biofuels by paying advanced biofuel producers for
finished advanced biofuel products." 
c.  USDA Section 9007 Rural Energy for America Program: "Provides guaranteed loan financing and
grant funding to agricultural producers and rural small businesses for renewable energy systems
or to make energy efficiency improvements." 
d.  DOE Section 1703 Loan Program: Section 1703 supports "innovative clean energy technologies
that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks." 
e.  The FAA Office of Environment and Energy (AEE) has verbally confirmed it is open to exploring
how existing grants could support biofuel infrastructure. Off-airport investments may be difficult 
given grant requirements; yet there may be innovative ways to address current restrictions. 
f.   Second Generation Biofuel Production Property Depreciation Allowance: An owner of a second-
generation biofuel production plant may be eligible for a 50 percent special depreciation
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  22 

allowance to recover the cost of qualified property. To be eligible, the plant must function solely
for second-generation biofuel production; be put into service by the current owner after
December 20, 2006, and before January 1, 2017; and produce fuel that meets the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency fuel and fuel additive registration requirements. Note: this
incentive expired December 31, 2016, and the renewal status is currently unknown (July 2017). 
5.  Pricing subsidies: These revenue streams help build the business case for a renewable fuel refining and/or
blending operation, and can help cover initial capital costs. They include: 
a.  Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs): United States Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
program requires any party that refines or imports gasoline or diesel fuel to blend a minimum
amount of renewable fuels into transportation fuel. The amount is EPA-specified and called the
renewable volume obligation (RVO). Obligated parties comply by either blending enough
renewable fuel to meet their annual RVO or purchasing RIN credits, which are generated when a
producer makes a gallon of renewable fuel. Renewable fuel producers can either sell fuels with
RINs attached to other obligated parties for a premium price or sell separated RINs to other
obligated parties in need of credits to comply with their RVO. 
b.  California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Credit Market: The LCFS requires producers and
refiners of petroleum-based transportation fuels to reduce the carbon intensity of their products
sold in the California market, culminating in a 10 percent total reduction by 2020. Petroleum
importers, refiners, and wholesalers can either develop their own low-carbon fuel products or
buy LCFS credits from other companies that develop and sell low-carbon alternative fuels such
as biofuels. It is theoretically possible for a Washington-based biorefinery to earn credits by
selling a portion of its bio-based products, such as renewable diesel, in California, while
simultaneously supplying SAF. Average credit prices have been trending upward over the last
four years and at the current time are valued at about $90/mTCO . 
2
c.  Biodiesel Mixture Excise Tax Credit: "A biodiesel blender that is registered with the IRS may be
eligible for a tax incentive in the amount of $1.00 per gallon of pure biodiesel, agro-biodiesel, or
renewable diesel blended with petroleum diesel to produce a mixture containing at least 0.1
percent diesel fuel. The incentive must first be taken as a credit against the blender's fuel tax
liability; any excess over this tax liability may be claimed as a direct IRS payment." Note: this
incentive expired December 31, 2016, and the renewal status is currently unknown (July 2017). 
d.  Second Generation Biofuel Producer Tax Credit: "A second generation biofuel producer that is
registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may be eligible for a tax incentive in the
amount of up to $1.01 per gallon of second generation biofuel that is: sold and used by the
purchaser in the purchaser's trade or business to produce a second generation biofuel mixture;
sold and used by the purchaser as a fuel in a trade or business; sold at retail for use as a motor
vehicle fuel; used by the producer in a trade or business to produce a second generation biofuel
mixture; or used by the producer as a fuel in a trade or business." Note: this incentive expired
December 31, 2016, and the renewal status is currently unknown (July 2017). 
6.  Insuring technology risk: There is a growing area within the insurance industry focused on underwriting
and insuring risks associated with renewable energy production, including technology performance
insurance for project debt financing and feedstock supply insurance. This can cover perils such as
equipment performance and improper or inadequate maintenance. Technology insurance contributes to 
favorable project financing. 
7.  Economic development grants: Several broad federal programs might be appropriate, including the EB-5
Visa Program, which provides foreign investors the opportunity to gain permanent residency. 
8.  Tax-related incentives: The State of Washington could provide a tax incentive to the project investors.
Examples include exempting the facility owner from paying sales tax on the facility's construction costs or
exempting SAF from fuel taxes. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  23 

9.  Washington State Clean Energy Fund: Although the announced second round (most recently publicized) of
state grants focuses on utility-based clean tech, a targeted request to include regional SAF infrastructure
would support the same published economic development goals. 
10. Non-capital contributions: Private funding requirements are reduced by an airport's contribution to project
development and/or construction. Examples include leasing land below market rate and signing a long-term
contract. 
11. Impact investing: Mission-driven investors may find SAF project investment attractive. Examples of such
investors could include institutional investors, university endowments, and family offices. In the case of
individual investors, a master limited partnership (MLP) could be established for a low-risk project such as a
feedstock processing plant. MLPs are tax-advantaged vehicles to avoid enterprise-level associated tax
obligations. 
12. Local banks: Involving local banks as sources of finance yields attractive regional co-benefits, and an
airport could build on existing banking relationships in the region to finance the project. 
13. Crowdfunding: Crowdfunding is an increasingly popular method of obtaining funding for projects. Blue
Marble Biomaterials recently launched a crowdfunding campaign, issuing equity under Regulation A+. In
another example, Wunder Capital, an online fundraising and investment portal, raised $11.3 million from
crowdfunding for commercial solar projects.8 The Port could encourage this type of investment by offering a
match and engaging the local community. Conventional investors may view the crowdfunding platform
unfavorably, and appropriateness varies according to risk profile. 
14. Public-supported funding: An airport operator could provide credit or liquidity support to private investors,
and the infrastructure would then be financed by those private investors. An example of this could be the
operator providing a loan guaranty, which would mitigate the risk of potential losses thus making the
investment more attractive to potential investors. A variation on this option is a joint guarantee, in which the
operator would provide a loan guaranty in cooperation with another guaranty-providing entity (e.g., an
airline). This increases the creditworthiness and thus attractiveness of the guaranty. (Note: there are political
feasibility challenges associated with a public entity's securing the debt of a private entity, and this
mechanism is not legal for the Port.) 
M OU       B
R
N
A
Y         O
K          N
C   T
C
O    A
I
R     N
I    E
T   W
N           M
A
S
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  24 
ON-AIRPORT SAF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AT SEATAC
The Port has several financial mechanisms it may employ to build a facility for SAF blending and storage for fuels
consumed by the Port or its customers, but it does not have the authority to use these same funding sources for
SAF production facilities, refineries, or other properties not directly owned by the Port. Port funding of SAF
infrastructure would be based on the Port's process for vetting project investments, and their funding would be
subject to Port Commission review. Commission approval may result in reprioritization of other projects. The
construction and funding of SAF infrastructure would likely need to be developed in collaboration with the Sea-
Tac Fuel LLC (fuel consortium). 
The type of direct engagement the Port might have supporting supply chain infrastructure falls broadly into two
categories: 
1.  Project finance, which includes direct financing (e.g., financing using taxes and bonds revenue) and 
direct ownership of the project. 
2.  Influencing favorable policy at the local, state, national, and international levels. 
The central focus of this section is on project finance. Policy actions are provided at the end of this section. 

PROJECT FINANCE 
1.  Bond issue: The Port could finance the construction of the infrastructure through a bond issue. Several
different bond repayment sources could be considered, including aeronautical revenue, non-aeronautical
revenue, special revenues, or tax levy. These bonds include: 
a.  General Obligation Bondsthese are paid from the Port's tax levy. 
b.  Port Revenue Bondsthese are paid from the Port's operating revenues.
c.  Special Facility Bondsthese require that the revenues paying back this debt be new to
the Port and not included in the Port's existing revenues already pledged to its Revenue
Bond investors. These bonds would be secured solely by the special revenues, so the
revenues must be sufficient to provide adequate security for the bonds. If the special
revenues are an addition to the fuel consortium lease, the bonds could be issued as
additional Special Facility Fuel bonds. 
2.  Green bond: Designating the bond issue as a "green bond" may make the financial instrument more
attractive to certain types of investors. An authority would still issue debt, and repayment options are like 
more traditional bonds. Issuance must adhere to generally accepted green bond principles, such as those
provided by the International Capital Market Association, and may attract a more diverse set of investors.v 
3.  Cash: Depending on the size of the project, the Port may use operating cash or tax levy cash to fund all or a
portion of the project costs.
4.  Public Private Partnership (P3): P3 is an alternative project delivery approach that may be utilized in certain
circumstances. There are many forms of P3 and the Port would want to assess the appropriate risk
allocation among partners in order to determine the most appropriate approach.
5.  Public-Public Partnership: The Port could potentially share funding with another public agency through an
interlocal agreement. This structure could include a private partner as well. 

v For more information on the International Capital Market Association's Green Bond Principles:
http://www.icmagroup.org/Regulatory-Policy-and-Market-Practice/green-bonds/green-bond-principles/ 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  25 

The use of Airport resources either in the form of cash or the payment of debt service, are subject to FAA
regulations and potentially airline approval. The use of non-Airport resources, e.g. the tax levy may require the
reprioritization of other projects and initiatives. 

FINANCE POLICY OPPORTUNITIES 
Government support for SAF is crucial. Fossil-based fuels benefit from over a century of technology innovations
and many decades of public subsidies. To compete with conventional fuel, SAF currently requires price
supports. Internationally, creating a price on carbon is a rational and logical place to start. The Port can play a
meaningful role in each level of government; this section briefly presents various options. 
The International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme International
Aviation (CORSIA) has the potential to make SAF consumption more economic for airlines. However, it will be
less costly to reduce greenhouse gases via the purchase of out-of-sector carbon offsets, so airlines will be less
likely to use SAF to meet their CORSIA obligations. There are opportunities for the Port to showcase leadership
actions and demonstrate viable solutions to ICAO members at international meetings. Presenting innovative
approaches to ICAO will foster interest and support on a global level. 
At the U.S. federal level, existing programs to support renewable fuels are essential. The Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) and the price supports that go with a range of fuels collectively produce $12/gallon subsidies
for SAF. RFS is a well-conceived program that paradoxically varies the magnitude of funding in relation to the
price differential with crude products. Blending credits provide additional financial incentive to producers. USDA
and DOE loan guarantees and funding for commercial production facilities can make the difference between a
viable and a failed project. The maintenance and growth of these federal programs are critical for the
development of SAF production facilities, and the Port should continue its support and advocacy role for these
programs. The Port can assume a leadership role in working with the FAA to recognize the value of SAF, 
consistent with other airport spending, to reduce emissions. 
At the state level, Washington can create incentives for co-benefits in fuels. Oregon has new regulations
regarding a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that includes aviation, and California is in the process of modifying
its own LCFS to include aircraft fuel on an opt-in basis (i.e. users of conventional jet fuel are not penalized, while
users of SAF are incentivized). Adopting an LCFS in Washington or creating another carbon regulation approach
that includes an opt-in option for domestic flights would be useful. Airlines have voiced a strong preference for
the aviation industry to gain "opt-in" provisions and exemptions from mandated requirements within an LCFS.
Opt-in participation generates financial incentives for voluntary SAF usage without additional regulatory burdens.
The Port can influence state policy regarding carbon pricing and incentives. Washington State could create a
Public Benefit Fund, described previously in this section, and the Port could play an influential role here as well. 
Locally siting facilities is a major hurdle given public concerns about new fuel production and the lack of
recognition that liquid fuels can be produced sustainably. The Port can play a key role educating and engaging 
stakeholders to support SAF programs. Effective communication and response to community concerns will
reduce developer challenges to retrofit or construct production facilities. The Port can also influence the local
permitting process to ensure new infrastructure can be installed in the right locations. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I
N     O
R
I
N   E   W    M
A
S
T
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  26 
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 
The most viable role for the Port in developing the SAF market is to focus on funding SAF co-benefits. By
sending a steady demand signal for SAF, the Port will incentivize producers to develop production capacity in
the region. Although the Port cannot use funds to purchase fuel directly, it has historically been able to use funds
to support clean air programs. The FAA has shown initial receptivity to the concept that payments for cobenefits
may be eligible uses of revenue. 
The assessment of 14 co-benefit funding mechanisms showed that there is no silver bullet capable of fully
covering the incremental cost. The estimated $6 million required to enable 1 percent SAF usage at Sea-Tac
could be generated by a combination of the following mechanisms: 
Corporate Supportcorporations contribute to offset their flight emissions ($1 million to $2.5 million
per year) 
Port Taxing Authoritythese funds support air quality benefits, similar to the Port's Clean Truck
Program ($360,000 to $720,000 per year) 
Use of General Non-Aeronautical Revenuewhile there are several individual non-aeronautical fees
and revenue sources that could be directed toward SAF co-benefits (such as parking or landside fees),
offering non-source specific revenues only when the airport achieves a particular total revenue threshold
could create a low-risk, non-targeted source for SAF co-benefit funds ($1.0 to $4.0 million per year) 
Airline Agreementimplement a fund via the airline operating agreement that is not subject to revenue
sharing, or create a new fee ($380,000 to $1.5 million per year) 
On the infrastructure side, the Port's legal limitations prevent any significant role in developing production
facilities. Therefore the Port's efforts may be better targeted toward policy support and advocating for use of
funding mechanisms toward SAF co-benefits. A longer-term fund commitment provides a form of assurance to
investors. 

INSIGHTS AND NEXT STEPS 
The next step is a more rigorous assessment by Port staff of the feasibility to employ the mechanisms described
in this report. The Port may be able to function in a unique capacity to facilitate SAF consumption with financing.
By taking a leadership role, the Port may be able to ensure that all carriers have access to SAF. Creating a new
and stable demand center would increase the viability of SAF for the aviation industry to develop a regional
supply chain. 
Catalyzing SAF use yields a host of benefits for the Port, including reduced CO emissions and improved local
2
air quality. Additionally, by addressing the incremental cost and playing a role in fund commitments, the airport
indirectly incentivizes the development of infrastructure by providing long-term demand and de-risking the
requisite investments. 
We suggest the following next steps to reach the goal of an in-state, small-scale SAF supply chain by 2020: 
Engage Port staff in a more detailed assessment of funding mechanisms 
Determine if/how the Port wants to engage at the State level 
Determine if/how the Port wants to engage with the FAA on innovative SAF co-benefit funding
approaches 
Formalize recognition for SAF co-benefits 
Partner to develop and implement the selected co-benefit funding mechanisms and develop the
corresponding SAF volume projections 
Leverage this market pull to create an in-state supply chain 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  27 
APPENDIX A 
DETAILED SAF CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISM EVALUATION MATRIX 
The matrix below shows the results of the detailed analysis of the long list of co-benefit funding mechanisms
against the seven selection criteria. The following color-coding was used to assess the mechanisms: 
Greenindicates high funding amount (greater than $500,000), minimal legal considerations,
relative ease of implementation, and limited negative airline/community/stakeholder/secondary
effects. 
Yellowindicates moderate funding amount (between $100,000 and $500,000), moderate legal
considerations, moderate challenges to implementation, and moderate negative
airline/community/stakeholder/secondary effects. 
Redindicates low funding amount (less than $100,000), significant legal considerations, significant
challenges to implementation, and substantial negative airline/community/stakeholder/secondary
effects. 
Greyindicates no negative airline/community/stakeholder/secondary effects. 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C
O    A
I
R     N
I
N   E
T   W    M
A
S          O
TIT U     R R O

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  28 

Annual                                Neighboring    Other
Legal      Ease of                                  Secondary
Funding                      Airline Impact  Community   Stakeholder               Conclusions
Considerations Implementation                                 Impact
Amount                              Impact     Impact
Airport Revenue (Aeronautical Revenue)
This is a possibility.
Would have to be              Need to obtain                           Other airport               However challenges putting
If majority of                    If majority of
moderate to get              regulator buy-in                         retailers and non-               this into airport agreement
airlines agree to                airlines agree to
Airline      buy-in from                and coordinate                              airline                       should not be
it, it can be                     it, it can be      No impact                     No impact
Agreement    airlines             with FAA and                    stakeholders will            underestimated. Airline
integrated into all                integrated into all
other government                         likely favor this                 interest to help cover
contracts                   contracts
$380K$2.28M              agencies                         approach              payment likely to increase if
other groups contribute.
Airport Revenue (Non-Aeronautical Revenue)
Despite modest revenues,
Need to verify to                                                                     the benefits of this solution
May require
purchasers that                Airlines may                Airport retailers                 (community engagement
significant
it's being used as               prefer leaving it                may see this as  Great for raising    and education) outweigh
coordination with
sold; might be               up to customers                revenue that    awareness and    the drawbacks. Note also
Retail                           concessions (and
$457K$914K  feasible to create            via retail rather   No impact    could have  for passengers to   the "voluntary passenger
Vouchers                     convincing them),
program outside               than through               otherwise been  feel like they are   contribution," below. These
branding,
of existing                  existing revenue                 used for their     contributing     two items could be linked,
signage, and web
revenue                  streams               products/services               along with appropriate
support
agreements                                                            marketing, as part of
broader program.
Need to obtain              Possible impact
Landside
regulator buy-in                to shuttle and
Landside                                 Reduces             operators may            Dependent on whether it is
Considered   and coordinate               business                 Impact to
Operation   $375K$1.7M                      significant airline           believe they pay             an eligible use of airport
airport revenue    with FAA and                 operators in                business growth
Fees                                 revenue             enough fees                revenues.
other government               neighbor
already
agencies                communities
Potential to be                Need to obtain
No impact
high depending              regulator buy-in                          Reduces Port
Reduces   expected; minor                       Dependent on whether it is
User     on what the    Considered   and coordinate                      revenue for
significant airline   opposition to                    No impact       an eligible use of airport
Surcharge   surcharge is   airport revenue   with FAA and                        capital
revenue     increased fees                               revenues.
applied to                other government                            investments
may occur
$230K$2.3M              agencies
Potentially a feasible option,
Recruiting                                                        depending on funding level
Probably not                                       Retailers, dining
competing                                                  relative to ease of
Mobile    Likely to be    significant,                                establishments,
providers (e.g.,                                                            implementation. Further
modest;     particularly if              Not interfering               and other
Payment                     LevelUp and                                       research: Discuss with
estimates range    structured                 with typical     No impact    concessionaires    No impact
Transactional                       Apple Pay) and                                               stakeholders to better
from       outside of               revenue streams             may be skeptical
Efficiency                         issuing RFP may                                                 understand transaction
$260K$780K   existing revenue                                 to invest in new
be moderately                                                  volume and likely amount of
agreements                                     equipment
time intensive                                                        revenue generated, as well
as implementation process.
Feasible, but there may be
limited opportunity. With no
Most high return                                                      upfront capital required,
Modest to low                                                  Reduces Port
Operational             Considered    projects have   Reduces airline                                  performance contracting is
No impact   project return on   No impact
Savings             airport revenue     been       revenue                                   likely worth exploring.
$17K$68.5K                                             investment
implemented                                               Dependent on whether it is
an eligible use of airport
revenue.
Limited land                                                     Depends on land
available, low                 Studies already                 Possibility for   usage; Port may
Not likely to be feasible,
solar potential,   Port real estate  completed to date                  glint/glare     want the space
Enhanced                             Reduces airline                    Growth in    due to limited availability of
and cost     division would   suggest limited               impacts if the     for other
Use Lease                                 revenue                      renewable energy   land/roof space and costprohibitive
lease  need to de-risk    land or roof                 lease is for solar  purposes or their
prohibitive lease rates.
rates                  surfaces available                  array       own on-site
$1,250$12,500                                              renewable project
Allocated for
If being diverted                  Not feasible at Sea-Tac
other purposes;
Aircraft Fuel               Considered    Allocated for   Reduces airline             from existing use,              because state funds are not
difficult to divert                                                No impact                     No impact
Tax Payments           airport revenue  other purposes    revenue              it could be             delineated and are hard to
funds
viewed negatively                      track.
$138K$688K
Only possible if
Concern that
It is illegal in WA   integrated with    Airlines would
Likely to be                                             tolling creates               Passengers might   Legal restrictions on tolling
to use toll road   airport and state   likely want this
Toll Road    significant                                   more traffic and   No impact   see this as a "fuel   this road make the option
revenue for this     roadway      funding to be
$7.5M$22.5M                                parking on local               tax"          infeasible.
purpose     infrastructure   used elsewhere
roads
plans
M OU       B
R
N
A
Y         O
K          N
T
C
C    A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  29 

Neighboring    Other
Annual funding    Legal      Ease of                                   Secondary
Airline Impact  Community   Stakeholder                  Conclusions
Amount  Considerations Implementation                            Impact
Impact     Impact
Non-Airport Revenue (Port Revenue)
Would require further
Could be
discussion about level of
moderate to                            Airlines less
King County                             funding and further
Port of      significant   Need to examine  Would require   concerned with               Taxpayer
communities may                         investigation of state law
Seattle Taxing  depending on  state laws re: gift clear accounting  how tax dollars              pushback;     No impact
want other uses                           precedents (i.e., could it be
Authority    Commission   of public funds  and benefit value  are used, more              political will
of tax dollars                                   applied to air quality
priorities                                    with PFCs
improvements or other
$360K$720K
community benefits?).
Non-Airport Revenue (Non-Port Revenue)
Depends on    SkyNRG and
Requires effort to   As long as it's
participants, but    others have                                                         Good reputation   This is a proven option that
Corporate                     get participation equitable among
could be     considerable                            No impact     No impact    for participating     should be viable in the
Support                      from corporate   all Sea-Tac
substantial      experience                                                         corporations         Seattle region.
partners        Airlines
$1M$2.5M   setting this up
Likely to be very
Appealing to                           Great for raising    See also Retail Vouchers,
modest, but
Voluntary                                  airlines as it does                       awareness and    above. Funding amount
could become   No major legal   Copy existing
Traveler                                      not impact     No impact     No impact   for passengers to   could be modest initially,
more significant     hurdles        models
Contribution                                   traditional                        feel like they are    but might grow as more
with time
revenue streams                          contributing     passengers participate.
$230K$690K
Potentially viable revenue
A precedent is                                                      stream, pending timing.
helpful but with
the CIF, carbon                                                         Further research:
reduction from                                                    Understand whether CIF for
Probably modest
Commodity          Easier if taken out biofuels becomes                                     jet fuel will be available
No impact     No impact     No impact     No impact
Impact Factor           of airport control    a direct                                               within the necessary
$73K$131K
commodity and                                              timeline. May choose to
should be easier                                                     recommend this option for
to justify                                                                    a future tranche of
procurement                                                 financing, even if it is not
available in the near term.
While there are ongoing
FAA rules                                                                  discussions with the FAA to
Persuading FAA
Grant funds likely  currently do not                                                                      consider SAF as an eligible
Federal                        to make SAF an
to be substantial allow VALE funds                 No impact      No impact      No impact      No impact     project for VALE grants, it is
Grants                       eligible project is
$375K$1.4M   to be used for                                                       a challenging effort.
a challenge
SAF                                                    However, the funding
potential is high.
M OU       B
R
N
A
Y         O
K          N
T
C
C    A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  30 
APPENDIX B 
CO-BENEFIT FUNDING MECHANISM REVENUE MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION
ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS 
Note: all funding amounts are estimated on an annual basis. 
AIRPORT REVENUE 
A.  AERONAUTICAL REVENUE 
1.  Airline agreement: $380,000$2.28 million 
In 2015 landing fees totaled $76 million.9 A $500,000 increase in landing fee revenue constitutes a 0.65 percent
increase. With the projected growth in landings at Sea-Tac, this increment may not even require increased rates;
however, the marginal growth would need to be earmarked. There is significant flexibility in how this option could
be designed to increase the revenue potential. While airline contracts are subject to FAA regulation, it may be 
possible to transmit funds through a third party, exempting the funds from revenue-sharing requirements.
Additionally, funds are not exclusively limited to landing fees. Revenues from renegotiated airline agreement
landing fees, while holding landings constant, are estimated as follows: 
Low: 0.5% increase over $76 million = $380K 
Base: 1.0% increase over $76 million = $760K 
High: 3.0% increase over $76 million = $2.28M 
B.  NON-AERONAUTICAL REVENUE 
2.  Retail vouchers: $457,000$914,000 
In 2016 there were 45.7 million air passengers at Sea-Tac.10 It is assumed that this level of traffic will continue.
Additionally, it is assumed that retail vouchers will have an exchange value of $1 per voucher, and that the
program will be operated by a third party not affecting airport retailer revenue (exempting this option from airline
revenue sharing). The level of uptake among passengers for a potential retail voucher program is estimated
according to the following conservative scenarios: 
Low: 1% uptake of 45.7M passengers at $1 per person = $457K 
Base: 1.5% uptake of 45.7M passengers at $1 per person = $685.5K 
High: 2% uptake of 45.7M passengers at $1 per person = $914K 
3.  Landside operation fees: $375,000$1.7 million 
There are approximately 880,000 taxi trips and 750,000 transportation network company (TNC) (e.g., Uber, Lyft,
etc.) rides per year at Sea-Tac.vi Total contracted ground transport is approximately 3.4 million trips. TNC
services are currently charged $5 per trip by the Port, the cost of which is passed on to consumers, while taxis
are charged $7 to $9 per trip.11 The TNC rates are based on a one-year pilot program started in April 2016. 
Relative to these existing charges, an additional $1 charge, earmarked for financing the co-benefits of SAF,
seems minimal. The revenues from such a charge are estimated as follows: 
Low: $1/ride charged just to TNC (750K rides) at 50% = $375K 
Base: $1/ride charged to TNC and taxis (1.63M rides) at 50% = $815K 
High: $1/ride charged to all contracted ground transport (3.4M rides) at 50% = $1.7M 


vi An article in the Seattle Weekly states 571,000 taxi trips is 35% less than the total number in 2015  suggests
880,000 taxi trips per year, historically. Article states taxis represent 26% of total ground transport  suggests 3.4
million trips for all ground transport. Article states TNC has 22% market share of ground transport  suggests
750,000 TNC rides per year. http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/uber-and-the-uncertain-future-of-taxis-at-theairport
/ 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  31 

4.  User surcharge: $230,000$2.3 million 
Since this co-benefit funding mechanism has many potential ways of being applied, the possible range of
revenues is large. Estimates are based on one surcharge option, in which all airport passengers are charged a
nominal fee according to the following scenarios: 
Low: $.01 surcharge on 46M passengers at 50% = $230K 
Base: $.05 surcharge on 46M passengers at 50% = $1.15M 
High: $.10 surcharge on 46M passengers at 50% = $2.3M 
a.  Parking fees: $160,000$630,000 
An example of an alternate option for a user surcharge is a parking fee. Parking revenues for the airport
were $63 million in 2015.12 It is assumed that any marginal increase in retail revenues resulting from the 
use of mobile payment will be shared with airlines at a rate of 50 percent. It is assumed that parking
revenues can be increased according to the following scenarios: 
Low: 0.5% increase over $63M at 50% = $160K 
Base: 1% increase over $63M at 50% = $315K 
High: 2% increase over $63M at 50% = $630K 
5.  Mobile payment transactional efficiency: $260,000$780,000 
Experience among retail businesses has demonstrated that mobile payment use is on the rise, and that it has the
ability to increase retail revenues due to reduced queues and less line attrition.13 According to the Port's
contracts with Signatory Airlines, all net revenue exceeding 125 percent of its annual debt service will be shared
with airlines at a rate of 50 percent.14 It is assumed that any marginal increase in retail revenues resulting from
the use of mobile payment will be shared with airlines at a rate of 50 percent. Dining and retail revenues for the
airport were $52 million in 2015, and this is assumed to be representative of years going forward.15 The increase
in retail revenues resulting from mobile pay are estimated according to the following scenarios: 
Low: 1% increase of $52M at 50% = $260K 
Base: 2% increase of $52M at 50% = $520K 
High: 3% increase of $52M at 50% = $780K 
6.  Operational savings: $17,000$68,500 
While there are many variants to this mechanism, the funding estimation was based on the streamlined
performance contracting option. Total aviation utility expenses were $13.7 million in 2016.16 It is assumed that
any utility savings from this mechanism be fully diverted to fund the SAF co-benefits. The range of savings is
estimated according to the following scenarios: 
Low: 0.25% savings of $13.7 in utilities expense at 50% = $17K 
Base: 0.50% savings of $13.7 in utilities expense at 50% = $34.3K 
High: 1.00% savings of $13.7 in utilities expense at 50% = $68.5K 
7.  Enhanced use lease: $1,250$12,500 
Based on conversations with Josh Peterson, senior real estate manager with the Northwest Seaport Alliance and
former seaport property manager with the Port of Seattle, general land rates in the port region are worth
approximately $6,500/acre/month on the low end for bare lands with no improvements. Based on transactional
data for solar leases, solar developers typically pay $500/acre/year.17 Solar potential in Seattle is also in the midto-low
end.18 This leads to the conclusion that enhanced use leases for solar development are cost prohibitive in
the Seattle region. However, other types of enhanced use leases besides solar could be viable. Additionally, if
the Port were to identify unutilized land that was previously considered unviable for commercial
development/leasing but could be used for solar farming, such land would carry a lower value that may be in the
price range viable for solar leases. It is assumed that the amount of such land available at the Port varies
according to the following scenarios: 
Low: 5 acres at $500/acre/year at 50% = $1.25K 
Base: 20 acres at $500/acre/year at 50% = $5K 
High: 50 acres at $500/acre/year at 50% = $12.5K 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  32 

8.  Aircraft fuel tax payments: $137,500$687,500 
RCW 82.42.030 authorizes the aircraft fuel tax and since 2005 has set the tax rate at 11 cents per gallon to be
deposited into the aeronautics account.19 Over the 10 year period from 2005 to 2015, the tax generated on
average $2.5 million per year, while revenues totaled $5.5 million in the 2011 to 2013 biennium.20 If the more
recent data better represents current volumes, it is assumed that total annual aircraft fuel tax revenues equal
$2.75 million. Since these funds are currently allocated to other projects, any new use of the revenues (e.g., to
help finance the co-benefits of SAF) would require diversion from existing uses. We assume three potential
scenarios with varying diversion rates as follows: 
Low: 10% diversion of $2.75M at 50% = $137.5K 
Base: 25% diversion of $2.75M at 50% = $343.8K 
High: 50% diversion of $2.75M at 50%= $687.5K 
9.  Toll road: $7.5 million$22.5 million 
This option is currently infeasible at the Port due to RCW Title 47, which restricts toll revenues to roadway
improvements; however, a potential funding estimate is provided as if this were not the case. Approximately 40
percent of all Sea-Tac passengers arrive and depart by private vehicles on curbside drives, amounting to
approximately 15 million personal vehicle trips and contributing to significant congestion. Revenues from this
mechanism are estimated according to the following toll fee scenarios: 
Low: $0.50 toll fee at 15M vehicles = $7.5M 
Base: $1.00 toll fee at 15M vehicles = $15M 
High: $1.50 toll fee at 15M vehicles = $22.5M 

NON-AIRPORT REVENUE 
A.  PORT REVENUE 
1.  Port of Seattle taxing authority: $360,000$720,000 
The Port of Seattle's 2017 tax levy is set at $72 million per year, while the maximum allowable levy is $98.7
million.21 There is significant flexibility in how the Port Commission can choose to allocate these tax revenues.
While it is theoretically possible that the Commission might decide to allocate several million dollars of existing
revenues towards an SAF co-benefit fund, in order to be conservative the following funding estimates assume
that existing tax revenues are fully allocated and any amount available for an SAF fund could only be sourced
from a tax increase. RCW Chapter 84.55 limits the annual growth of regular property taxes to the lesser of 1
percent or the inflation rate.22 Since inflation is above 1 percent currently, the levy cannot be increased beyond 1
percent.23 Provided any tax levy increase can be earmarked for the SAF co-benefits, estimates were made based
on the following rate increase scenarios: 
Low: 0.5% increase over $72 million = $360K 
Base: 0.75% increase over $72 million = $540K 
High: 1.0% increase over $72 million = $720K 
B.  NON-PORT REVENUE 
2.  Corporate support: $1 million$2.5 million 
It is expected that the average corporate contribution will be $100K, with a range of $50K to $200K.24 
Low: 10 corporate sponsors at $100K each = $1M 
Base: 15 corporate sponsors at $100K each = $1.5M 
High: 25 corporate sponsors at $100K each = $2.5M 
3.  Voluntary traveler contribution: $230,000$690,000 
Sea-Tac served 46 million passengers in 2016.25 The only existing voluntary traveler contribution program, The
Good Traveler, currently charges $2 per certified carbon offset for 1,000 flying miles. To be conservative, it is
assumed that volunteering passengers purchase a single offset for $1 each. Uptake among consumers for
voluntary programs tends to be low; the level of involvement is estimated as follows: 
Low: 0.25% uptake of 46M passengers at $1 each = $230K 
Base: 0.50% uptake of 46M passengers at $1 each = $460K 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
S
T    A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  33 

High: 0.75% uptake of 46M passengers at $1 each = $690K 
4.  Commodity impact factor: $73,000$131,000 
RMI-CWR and SkyNRG conducted work for a European airport, and estimated that 4,000 tons/year of SAF in a 1
percent blend would yield 14,600 tons of CO reduction. Since the European airport has less than half the annual 
2
passenger traffic as Sea-Tac, it is estimated that 8,000 tons/year of SAF would yield twice the CO reductions, or
2
29,200 tons. The price of carbon in existing voluntary carbon markets is used as a proxy for the price the Port
could receive for carbon reductions, and revenues are estimated according to the following scenarios26: 
Low: $2.50/ton for 29.2K tons of CO reduction = $73K 
2
Base: $3.50/ton for 29.2K tons of CO reduction = $102K 
2
High: $4.50/ton for 29.2K tons of CO reduction = $131K 
2
5.  Federal grants: $375,000$1.375 million 
In 2016, the FAA awarded $31.1 million in VALE grants to eight airports.27 The average grant was $3.75 million,
and the median grant was $3.35 million. Excluding outliers on the high and low end, the range of grants was $1.5
million to $5.7 million. Since grant applications can take two years to put together and there is no guarantee of
being awarded, grant amounts are amortized over four years for each scenario. 
Low: Low end of historical grants is $1.5M, over four years = $375K 
Base: Approximate median historical grant is $3.5M, over four years = $875K 
High: High end of historical grants is $5.5M, over four years = $1.375M 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N
T
C  N
C    A
I     O
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A
R R O
O
TIT U

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  34 
ENDNOTES
1 "Facts & Figures," Air Transport Action Group, 
http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html 
2 Ibid. 
3 Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders, Air Transport Action Group, July 2016. 
4 Lovins, Amory B., and Rocky Mountain Institute. Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New
Energy Era. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 2013. 
5 Adapted from: The Aviation Sector's Climate Action Framework, Air Transport Action Group, November 2015. 
6 "Carbon Dioxide Emission Coefficients," U.S. Energy Information Administration
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm 
7 "ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator Methodology, Version 7," International Civil Aviation Organization,
June 2014. http://www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/CarbonOffset/Documents/Methodology%20ICAO%20Carbon%20Calculator_v7-2014.pdf 
8 "2016 Year in Review," Wunder Capital, 
http://assets.wundercapital.com/2016-year-in-review.pdf 
9 "2017 Budget and Business Plan, Aviation," Port of Seattle, 
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Financial-Info/Budget/Documents/2017/_09_sec_04_aviation.pdf, page IV-17. 
10 "Airport Statistics," Port of Seattle, 
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Publications/Statistics/Airport-Statistics/Pages/default.aspx 
11 "Ride with Uber at Sea-Tac," Uber, https://www.uber.com/airports/sea-tac/ and 
"A New Airport Contract Puts Taxi Drivers in a Tough Spot," Sara Bernard,
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/a-new-airport-contract-puts-taxi-drivers-in-a-tough-spot/ and "App-based
ride services may be able to pick up at Sea-Tac," Evan Bush, http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/appbased-ride-services-may-be-able-to-pick-up-at-sea-tac
/ 
12 "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as of December 31, 2015 and 2014," Port of Seattle,
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Financial-Info/Documents/2015_cafr_final.pdf, page 65 
13 "Starbucks wants your phone as much as it wants to sell you coffee," John Kell,
http://fortune.com/2015/07/24/starbucks-mobile-investments/ 
14 "Signatory Lease and Operating Agreement 20132017," Port of Seattle, 
http://aci-na.org/sites/default/files/sea-tac_airport_sloa_iii_2013_-_2017_-_execution_copy_-_9_10_13.pdf 
15 "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report As of December 31, 2015 and 2014," Port of Seattle,
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Financial-Info/Documents/2015_cafr_final.pdf, page 65. 
16 "2017 Budget and Business Plan, Aviation," Port of Seattle, 
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Financial-Info/Budget/Documents/2017/_09_sec_04_aviation.pdf 
17 "Pendleton airport leasing land for solar farm," George Plaven, 
http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/local-news/20141113/pendleton-airport-leasing-land-for-solar-farm 
18 "Solar Energy Potential," U.S. Department of Energy, https://energy.gov/maps/solar-energy-potential 
19 "Washington Airport Investment Study," Washington State Department of Transportation,
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/765B30A4-8E34-457A-986EDDFC13DFBDAF
/0/3FundingAirportInvestments.pdf, page 19. 
20 "March 2015 Transportation Economic and Revenue Forecasts," Washington State Office of Financial
Management, http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/March15transposummary.pdf, page 34. 
21 "Port of Seattle Tax Levy," Port of Seattle, 
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Financial-Info/Pages/Tax_Levy.aspx 
22 "2015 Budget and Business Plan, Levy," Port of Seattle, 
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Financial-Info/Budget/Documents/2015/_14_2015_Levy.pdf 
23 "12-month percentage change, Consumer Price Index," Bureau of Labor Statistics,
https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-price-index-by-category-line-chart.htm 
24 Based on proprietary information. 
25 "Airport Statistics," Port of Seattle, 
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Publications/Statistics/Airport-Statistics/Pages/default.aspx 
26 "Raising Ambition: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2016," Forest Trends, 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N       N
T
C
C
O    A
I
R     N
I
N   E       M
S
T   W
A   O
TIT U     R R O

INNOVATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL AT U.S. AIRPORTS  35 

http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_5242.pdf 
27 "Press Release  FAA Awards $33.7 Million in Environmental Grants to Airports," FAA,
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=21075 
M OU       B
R
A
Y         O
K   N       N
C   T
C
A
I     O
R     N
I       W
N   E       M
T    A
S
R R O
O
TIT U

22830 Two Rivers Road    Rapenburgerstraat 109 
Basalt, CO 81621 USA     1011 VL Amsterdam, Netherlands
www.rmi.org          www.skynrg.com

July 2017 RMI. All rights reserved. Rocky Mountain Institute and RMI are registered trademarks.